<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Riset Australia – Indonesia Partnership for Justice 2 (AIPJ 2) tahun 2019 menyatakan bahwa 99% permintaan dispensasi kawin di pengadilan dikabulkan oleh hakim. Sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 7 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan, apabila pernikahan hendak dilakukan bagi pria dan wanita yang belum berusia 19 tahun maka orang tua pihak pria dan/atau wanita dapat meminta dispensasi kepada pengadilan dengan alasan sangat mendesak disertai bukti-bukti pendukung yang cukup. Namun, terdapat pula putusan pengadilan yang menolak permintaan dispensasi kawin contohnya adalah Putusan Nomor 0127/Pdt.P/2021/PA.Kr. Pemohon mengajukan permintaan dispensasi kawin dengan dasar alasan yang sangat mendesak. Pihak wanita yang baru berusia 12 tahun telah berpacaran selama enam bulan dengan pihak pria yang berusia 30 tahun sehingga perlu dikawinkan untuk menghindari perzinahan. Hakim Pengadilan Agama Krui menolak permintaan tersebut. Berdasarkan latar belakang di atas, penelitian ini menganalisis penafsiran hakim terhadap makna “alasan sangat mendesak†dalam menolak permintaan dispensasi kawin. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan menelaah dokumen-dokumen hukum yang relevan mengenai dispensasi kawin. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa hakim menggunakan metode penafsiran gramatikal, penafsiran historis, dan penafsiran autentik terhadap makna “alasan sangat mendesak.†Permintaan dispensasi kawin pada kasus ini tidak sesuai dengan prinsip maqasid syariah, perlindungan terhadap kesehatan dan psikologis anak, tidak beralasan, tidak memenuhi kriteria alasan mendesak dan tidak didukung oleh bukti-bukti yang cukup di persidangan.Kata kunci: dispensasi kawin; alasan mendesak; penafsiran hukum. ABSTRACT Research conducted by Australia – Indonesia Partnership for Justice 2 (AIPJ 2) in 2019 showed that 99% of motions of marriage dispensation submitted to the courts were granted by judges. Provision of Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law Number 16 of 2019 on Amendments to Law Number 1 of 1974 on Marriage stipulates that if men and women who are under 19 years old would like to marry, the parents of the men and/or the women can le a motion of marriage dispensation to the courts on the ground of imperative reason accompanied by suf cient supporting evidence. Nevertheless, there is a decision that denies the marriage dispensation motion for example Decision Number 0127/ Pdt.P/2021/PA.Kr. The Petitioner led a marriage dispensation motion to the court on the ground of imperative reason. A 12-year-old-girl and a 30-year-old man had been dating for six months. They needed to be married to avoid fornication. A judge of the Krui Religious District Court denied the motion. According to that background, this research analyzes the judge’s interpretation of ‘imperative reason’ meaning. This research applies a normative juridical method by assessing the legal documents concerning marriage dispensation. The result displays that the judge applies grammatical, historical, and authentic interpretations to the meaning of ‘imperative reason.’ In this case, the motion of marriage dispensation does not follow the principles of maqasid sharia, protection of children’s health and psychology, is unreasonable, does not meet the criteria of imperative reason, and is not supported by suf cient evidence at the trial. Keywords: marriage dispensation; imperative reason; legal interpretation.]]>
